Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be president in Myanmar!

Aung San Suu Kyi cannot be president in Myanmar!

-Dr. Abdul Ruff



Myanmar on March 15 started its presidential election in the Union Parliament comprising two Houses. The country’s new president will be elected among three vice presidents. Myanmar’s National League for Democracy (NLD) has named its candidates to be president, confirming that its elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi is not a contender.  The three vice presidents are U Htin Kyaw of the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) party, who was elected by the group of presidential electoral college of the House of Representatives (Lower House), U Henry Van Htee Yu also from NLD, who was elected by the House of Nationalities (Upper House), and U Myint Swe from the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP), who was directly assigned by the military.

The candidate thought most likely to become president, Htin Kyaw, is a close aide. It is however of no consequence as to who win the presidency as Suu Kyi still control the president and his powers. Ms Suu Kyi failed to persuade the military to allow a clause barring her from the presidency to be overruled.  But she has vowed to lead from the sidelines instead.

Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy will control parliament, although a quarter of the seats as well as key government ministries remain in the hands of the military. One of the new parliament’s first jobs will be to choose a president to replace Thein Sein who steps down at the end of March. Ms Suu Kyi, who spent 15 years under house arrest by the army rulers, is constitutionally barred from standing because her sons are British not Burmese.  There was speculation that a deal may have been done with the military to allow her to take the job

The new government will take power on 1 April – the first freely elected government after more than 50 years of military rule and then five years of military-backed civilian government.
The generals’ inflexibility, in the face of a huge popular mandate, has set the tone for what looks likely to be a period of confrontation between them and the newly elected democrats. It was in November last year that Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), swept the board in the long-awaited general election.

The NLD won nearly 80% of the contested seats and everyone, even the army, agreed that the Burmese people had not just voted for change, they had voted for Suu Kyi to lead. Emboldened by the result, the former political prisoner reached out to her long-time adversaries. In the past four months she has held three meetings with Commander-in-Chief Min Aung Hlaing. Suu Kyi was exploring the possibility of a grand deal. What the NLD leader needed was the army’s approval for a legally dubious move. She wanted parliament to temporarily suspend the part of the constitution that bars her from becoming president.


The NLD won the majority of non-military seats available in parliament in last year’s historic general election, although the army – which still controls a quarter of all parliamentary seats and key security ministries – remains a significant force in Burmese politics. The NLD, which won a landslide in November, has named Htin Kyaw as its lower house nominee for vice president, and Henry Van Thio, an MP from the Chin ethnic minority, as its upper house nominee. Both houses will choose between the NLD’s candidates and those from other parties, but because the NLD holds a majority in both houses, its candidates are likely to be chosen. The winner from each house will then enter a second vote to decide the president of the country. A military nominated candidate will also compete in this vote. The two losing candidates will become vice-presidents.

Suu Kyi  tried right to the last. But there was no deal. Despite a huge win in the election, Aung San Suu Kyi failed to convince the army that her destiny was the presidency. Clause 59F of the constitution which bars her because her sons have British not Burmese passports remains in place, and she has now chosen someone else. It’s Htin Kyaw, who she’s known all her life. He’s a committed member of the party and was by her side when Ms Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 2010. His most important quality may be the ability to take orders.

Aung San Suu Kyi has made it clear that though she does not have the title – she will still be in charge.  Ms Suu Kyi’s close aide Htin Kyaw, 70, is a quietly spoken man who attended university in the UK. He has a reputation for honesty and loyalty, and has kept a low profile. His father, the writer and poet Min Thu Wun, won a seat for the party at the 1990 election. His wife, Su Su Lwin, is the daughter of an NLD founder, as well as being a sitting MP, and a prominent party member. He has played a senior role at the Daw Khin Kyi Foundation, the charity founded in honour of Suu Kyi’s late mother, and has been frequently seen at the NLD leader’s side, serving as her driver from time to time.
The chances of Aung San Suu Kyi becoming Myanmar’s next president have been receding for months. But as parliament puts forward its nominations for the top job, the situation is clear: there will be no last-minute deal, no President Suu Kyi. Those expecting a Nelson Mandela ending to this incredible story will be disappointed. But for Suu Kyi and her many supporters little has actually been lost. This anticlimactic outcome strengthens her politically and diminishes the military in the eyes of the Burmese people.

Clause 59F famously disqualifies anyone whose spouse, children, and even spouses of children, have foreign passports. Suu Kyi’s two children by Oxford academic Michael Aris are British. Supporters of the clause say it protects the country’s sovereignty, but many believe it was drafted by the military to close the door on Suu Kyi. To open that door, the Burmese army would have demanded concessions. That could have meant giving the military the right to choose the chief ministers of several states, and securing promises that the army’s many business interests would be left alone.

So what, then, will the new political landscape of Burma look like?

Suu Kyi famously said before the election that she would be “above” whoever she picks to be president. All Suu Kyi will have to do is pick up a phone to flex her presidential power by proxy. She has lost nothing there. Unencumbered by any deal with the army, Suu Kyi will be freer to pursue her campaign platform from the 2015 election. Her authority is unchallenged within her party and she will now remotely command both presidency and parliament. One of her priorities is likely to be a renewed bid to change the constitution to reduce the army’s power.

The unelected army representatives have already sampled the new order. Suu Kyi’s MPs are demanding that deals made by the army and the former government be re-examined. In a rare moment of drama, all the men in green uniform stood up in the house in protest. In the immediate aftermath of the election, Suu Kyi spoke of being inclusive and creating a government of national unity. That was before the army rejected her overtures. It is expected that the government Suu Kyi leads will be a mix of NLD officials and technocrats.

The 2008 constitution will be the main limit on Suu Kyi’s power. Drafted by the generals, and approved in a sham referendum, it ensures the military retains its political role. The key security ministries (home, defence, border affairs) are appointed not by the president but by the army commander-in-chief. A quarter of the seats in parliament are also reserved for soldiers. That is not enough for them to block legislation, but sufficient to scupper any attempts to amend their constitution. Most importantly, the military is almost certain to have insisted that attempts to chip away at its political power be put on the back burner. So beneath the feel-good headline of “President Suu Kyi”, the army would have consolidated its political role. It’s not clear why the grand deal didn’t happen. Perhaps the army just couldn’t stomach the idea, or maybe Suu Kyi refused to concede enough. For whatever reason, the talks broke down.


Much has changed in Myanmar, but the Burmese army has not budged one inch from the red lines it put into the constitution. The democratic experiment, economic reforms and the emboldened Suu Kyi remain in a controlled space that the military designed and now seem intent on preserving.  Myanmar’s independence hero, Gen Aung San, assassinated in July 1947 when Suu Kyi was only two years old was her father. From 1964, studied philosophy, politics and economics at Oxford University, where she met her future husband, academic Michael Aris. She returned to Rangoon in 1988 to look after her critically ill mother during the midst of a campaign for democratic reform.

Suu Kyi organised rallies and travelled around the country, calling for peaceful democratic reform and free elections. Demonstrations brutally suppressed by the army, which seized power in a coup in September 1988, placing Suu Kyi under house arrest the following year. Her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won a national election in 1990 – but the military junta refused to relinquish power. Suu Kyi spent protracted periods under house arrest until she was finally released unconditionally in 2010. Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. She led the NLD to a majority win in Myanmar’s first openly contested election in 25 years in November 2015.

Suu Kyi will control both the parliament and presidency without being the country’s president.



T20 world cup 2016: has India got double-advantages?

T20 world cup 2016: has India got double-advantages?

Dr. Abdul Ruff



T20 where bowlers must offer as many 6s and 4s as possible in order to help boost the image of batboys in 20 overs, thereby helping the bating team make a ‘respectable’ score is an extreme version of joint cricketism. Unlike in test cricket where bowlers do not give more than 2-4 runs per over, in T20 the bowlers maintain the range of 7-18 runs per over so that batboys can enjoy in 6s and 4s since only a total of 120 balls are at their disposal and batboys must get as many runs as possible quickly to retain their false image and happiness of fans and other spectators, including the corporate sponsors. Teams never want a contest between the bowler teams because that is disastrous for the poor batboys on both sides and so they ask the bowlers to promote batboys and make matches “interesting”. The giving run to batboys is important and a must for bowlers – and not taking wickets that makes cricketers unhappy.

As today the so-called T20 world cup show begins and India, spending a lot of money on cricket, seems to be the favorites to get the cup, let us try to comprehend the win phenomenon in joint cricketism.

At the outset credit must be given to Indian cricket team for its bowling unit that coerces other teams with weaker bowlers to come for “compromises” with India while the powerful India mafia helps the team win the matches almost comfortably. The IPL connections make other bowlers to play for India when the signal emanates from the concerned side, while their batboys leave the crease as early as possible. Since all this happens as official fixing, nothing can be done by ant-corruption squads. Indian batboys are as bad as any batboy in any other teams who hits when bowler are kind and helpful and they suffer at the crease as bowlers and fielders deny runs even in ones. Solidly reckless and sincere bowling sends the “best” batboys to the hut quickly.

The best example remains India’s Sachin Tendulkar who had to quit cricket because he had to stand at the crease for nearly two years for a 100 runs that he eventually got from Bangladesh obviously on Indian pressure on that country. Indian government made him “bharataratna” in order to overcome its on feeling of big insult. That was his one last century and Indian regime could not tolerate the pain even the rulers felt seeing its god standing with a long a bat at the crease worshiping the bowlers for quick 4s and 6s.

India would struggle if other teams also make their bowling unit strong but generally seeking for 100s and 50s for their batboys they do not genuine create a good bowling team. Especially UK, New Zealand, South Africa etc do not bother about bowling teams. The cricket boards also discuss the composition of bowling unit of each other and make compromises.  They also decide the “records’ each cricketer and teams expect to “achieve” in the series and both teams work for “fulfilling” that. Only one issue they have problem is the dubious “man of match” awards- decided depending on the circumstances.

India’s double advantages include IPL payment, bowling unit and official and private mafia strength. Corporate media in the west and east do not want any bad women for cricket fixers and so never try to expose official fixings as every country promotes fake sports.  Since cricekters want as much money as possible they can do anything silently to secure it.

Almost every Indian TV channel now is busy blasting the news about the T20 world cup while sports channels focus on greatness of Indian cricketers and their resolve to somehow win the WC this time. The BCCI, spots ministry and the powerful corporate mafia, confident about Indian winning the cup, are busy getting all foreign bowlers, who are currently on the payrolls of rich IPL bosses, play for India’s success. They are not supposed to trouble Indian batboys. India would use multipronged approach to get what it wants. Cricket is a purely private “sport” as the BCCI is not governed by government agencies. But cricket represents India and honored by the government.

Indian cricket commentators say Indian team is magnificent as its batboys are simply awesome. Other teams are no match for India as they have not yet comprehended preparations India does beforehand with regard to each and every cricketer of other teams. However, India is more than its real talent, as it, thanks to IPL advantages, seems to have ensured support of some players in other teams as well.

Cricket commentators are in fact those who are paid to boost the image of batboys by parsing their so-called fabulous shots. They are told not to peep into the bowling techniques or find fault with bowlers or their bogus bowling habits. The idea is not expose the batboy-bowler equations’ or mafia interventions to get 100s to batboys by rotation. They are not supposed to talk about nonsensical pro-batboy pitches prepared on demand. They are not allowed to discuss the play ground which is almost empty with a few boys standing leaving a lot of space in between for the batboys to drive the ball for 4s and 6s.

Since the commentators know well the consequences if they talk a world about match fixing, they just don’t mention that at all. As bowlers offer free balls for batboys to select their shots, commentators keep saying “wo, another 4” and “another 6” etc to fool the public.

It is likely that the commentators do not know about all secret fixings but  they can easily guess what is going on the field and why after two wickets bowlers offer to many  runs in 4s and 6s along with wides, for instance, helping the run rate jump up.

Teams like Pakistan and Bangladesh “win” the toss and decide to bowl. But they do not  restrict the  bating team to a bare minimum score but  help  it make  big score. The idea is to get back 100s and 50s  as return favors> They willingly lose the match but would be happy to get man of the match as achievement for awards.

Commentators never utter word about all these known dramas because they don’t want to lose money and do risk chances in future to work as paid commentators. But as part of  mafia, they get all benefits.

The highly paid cricket commentators debate nonsense in the name of promotion of bating. These so-called expert boys who were once themselves cricketers minting huge money from all possible different sources for playing cricket dramas by promoting pathetic looking “runout’ the batboys, who cannot defend their stamps. These batboys could be India’s hon. Bharatratnas and Padmashrees–  rare honors meant not for the frauds and false record holders like cricketers, or at least military’s adopted Colonels, but if the bowlers opt for dotball and do not offer runs, they stand like stranded passengers at the crease not knowing what to do.   That would be so pathetic scene to watch!

Cricket commentators are paid liars who talk only about “greatness” of batboys describing how fantastic their shorts are but they refuse to link the shots with bowling nature and techniques. They don’t say whether batboys could hit 6s and 4s or even singles if bowlers are reckless and keep to dotball techniques without trying for a wicket by offering many urns just for fun.

Unless the governments stop cricket frauds to fool the people by secret deals for 100s and 50s and return favor conventions.

Commentators are frauds and thrive because cricketers are frauds and liars. The batboy captain tells the crowd before the match begins about how many runs they would make but in fact he wants the bowlers to give to his team that many runs and good “respectable” score. In fact the teams also decide what score the first bowling team should give to the batboys. That is illegal and immoral. .

In Asia cup, With Sri Lanka not showing nay interest, India, which pays huge sums to other players in IPL, was boosted as the favorites even by other teams.  Unexpectedly, Bangladesh came to the final to face India as Pakistan, playing only for 5os let India defeat it. In fact, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka were competing with one another to promote Indian interests in Asia cup so that India can shine at world cup. BD was eager to keep Indians in good humors by offering too many runs so that India would offer enough to Bangladesh in kind.  Defeating India would create problems in the ailing bilateral ties. India was not so sure of winning the cup without BD assistance. Earlier, Bangladesh defeated both Pakistan and Sri Lanka and defeating India would add prestige to BD team.

Commentators were quick to say Bangladesh lost the Asia finals because of ‘brilliant” Indian bating and very tactfully hid the truth about Indo-Bangla pre-fixing.  Bangladesh Captain said one day before the final match declared that India will win the finals and in a way conveyed the message indirectly that Bangladesh would let India win it. In the 15 overs match on March 06 India “won” the toss and let BD to bat first, gave 120 runs taking only 5 wickets. BD bowlers took one wicket of Rohit quickly and then onwards offered only runs, refused either to reduce run rat or take more wickets. Obviously Bangladesh boys did not want to defeat big brother India which would help them with some “gifts”.  How can commentators say all this frankly?

Now it is clear all Asian teams would help India in the world cup, especially Pakistan Bangladesh and Sri Lanka would do everything possible to appease the big brother. Commentators can try to be honest with public which pays them.

India, spending too much (black) money for cricket matches in the country and abroad, is targeting the world cup win. Not only the South Asian spin teams, but even every foreign player who is part of IPL drama is expected to promote  Indian interest in world cup so that cricket can survive in many more formats so that every player would get  plenty of money and also some awards.

While Bangladesh and Srilanka are scared of defeating India, Pakistan wants just 50 runs for at least one of its batboys and that is the reason Pak team opt to bowl first , giving a couple of 50s or 100s  as “ voluntary deposits” in order to reap the  return favors.

By far, Indian advantages are also greater so far as other teams are concerned.

Soon the world cup scenes would unfold many “interesting” features while the paid commentators would busy searching for varieties of batboy greatness. Meanwhile Indian corporate media would get some foreign cricketers to praise, obviously on payment basis, Indian batboys who would then be promoted for national awards!

By the way, will cricket boards seriously think about reviewing all official fixings, about the bogus records and rankings? Will the cricketers talk some truth at least off the field and let the commentators also talk about bowling techniques deciding bating greatness?